What Is Non-Duality ?

[3bob]

But I'm not an eternalist... nevermind.

 

Eternal is ok... but not static permanence.

 

http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx

If we analyze both the Hindu Sankaràcàryas and the Buddhist Śāntarakṣitas, we find that both agree that the view of the Hindu Advaita Vedànta is that the ultimate reality (âtmà) is an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition. The Buddhists as a whole do not agree that the ultimate reality is an eternal, unchanging non-dual cognition, but rather a changing eternal non-dual cognition. These statements found in the 6th century Hindu text and the refutations of the Hindu view found in the 9th century Buddhist texts (both of which were after the Uttara Tantra and Asanga), show that the Hindu view of the ultimate reality as an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition is non-existent amongst the Buddhists of India. Not only was such a view non-existent amongst Buddhists of India, but it was also refuted as a wrong view by scholars like Śāntarakṣita. He even writes that if and when Buddhists use the word eternal (nitya), it means parinàmi nitya, i.e., changing eternal, and not the Hindu kind of eternal, which always remains unchanged.

 

Udana 8.3

"There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. (or namely that which changes, my insert) But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned".

 

Thus the "not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned" (btw a cyclic, eternal change is also not mentioned above) thus that which can not change and is not changable - either eternally or temporarily is pointed to by the founder of Buddhsim which in my reading refutes the commentaries you quote, commentaries which forget or change the import of this sutta to fit their school.

 

A common type of problem in all ways or religions.

Edited December 25, 2011 by 3bob

[Aaron]

After much thought and contemplation, seriously considering all arguments made thus far, I think I can finally answer the question, "what is non-duality?" Non-duality is not duality.

 

Aaron

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Non-duality is a term that allows people to talk about it and sound as if they were mystics or sages, or as if the they were on some path to enlightenment.. the result of claiming the term's validity is to create conflict (see this thread).

 

Non-duality is only meaningful to creatures that have the intellect to contrive such a concept, and.. ironically, it is the condition of separation or, of independently functioning versions of Wholeness, that is necessary for the concept of non-duality to be compared with for its apparent meaning.. if there were no 'duality', the term 'non-duality' wouldn't make sense, and.. since duality is an existent condition, the fundamental condition for existence, the term 'non-duality' is negated, except for parlor tricks with wordplay.. the fundamental condition for existence is the relationship between that which 'is'('is-ness'), and the absence of that which 'is' ('is-notness').. to suggest that non-duality is something within which is-ness and is-notness is contained is a belief about a concept, supported by wordplay..

 

Be well..

[3bob]

Greetings..

 

Non-duality is a term that allows people to talk about it and sound as if they were mystics or sages, or as if the they were on some path to enlightenment.. the result of claiming the term's validity is to create conflict (see this thread).

 

Non-duality is only meaningful to creatures that have the intellect to contrive such a concept, and.. ironically, it is the condition of separation or, of independently functioning versions of Wholeness, that is necessary for the concept of non-duality to be compared with for its apparent meaning.. if there were no 'duality', the term 'non-duality' wouldn't make sense, and.. since duality is an existent condition, the fundamental condition for existence, the term 'non-duality' is negated, except for parlor tricks with wordplay.. the fundamental condition for existence is the relationship between that which 'is'('is-ness'), and the absence of that which 'is' ('is-notness').. to suggest that non-duality is something within which is-ness and is-notness is contained is a belief about a concept, supported by wordplay..

 

Be well..

 

Hello TzuJanLi, Word play or not I don't agree. (although that is logical, logic doesn't see far enough)

[voidisyinyang]

Hello TzuJanLi, Word play or not I don't agree. (although that is logical, logic doesn't see far enough)

 

Well he keeps commenting so obviously all is not lost. haha. More specifically the philosophy of nondualism is from the Brahmin caste which relies on mind yoga due to its protection by the Warrior Caste. So the Brahmin priests are supposed to do a three day ritual purification if they even see a female. Similarly the Brahmins rely on separation from the masses to practice their nondualist mind yoga. Mind yoga is the most difficult path but it also relies the greatest hierarchical structure for it to be successful. That's precisely why nondualism is so attractive to the white males of the U.S. haha. Nondualism also relies on patriarchy and the logic of nondualism is symmetric - -without a true understanding of complementary opposites. This is why Master Nan, Huai-chin and Bill Bodri state in their book Measuring Meditation that Ramana Maharshi did not achieve complete enlightenment -- because the body channels must also be emptied out into consciousness as well.

 

Traditionally nondualism can not be practiced until nirvikalpa samadhi is achieved and this means, energetically, that a person should be able to sit in full lotus for two hours in ease, with the body filled with electromagnetic fields. The person should also be able to go without food and water, converting jing into chi. In which case all this need to pontificate would be silly. haha.

[xabir2005]

Udana 8.3

"There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. (or namely that which changes, my insert) But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned".

 

Thus the "not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned" (btw a cyclic, eternal change is also not mentioned above) thus that which can not change and is not changable - either eternally or temporarily is pointed to by the founder of Buddhsim which in my reading refutes the commentaries you quote, commentaries which forget or change the import of this sutta to fit their school.

 

A common type of problem in all ways or religions.

You do not understand the context of what is said above. Buddha is talking about Final Cessation - the title of the scripture is called Final Cessation - Parinibbana. The analogy he gave is this: when the fire stops blowing due to lack of fire fuel, the fire cannot be said to go here, there, up, down, left, right, anywhere. It is just 'ceased'. The same applies to the final cessation.

 

Having ceased, it is not-born, not brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned. If cessation were not possible, there could not have been freedom from being reborn. Precisely because 'fire-stops-burning' is possible that there is freedom from fire so similarly, precisely because 'not-being-born, etc etc' is possible that there can be freedom from being born, etc.

 

This is not an unchanging metaphysical substance friend, it is talking about final cessation. That is ALL the Buddha is ever talking about in his pali scriptures... in his own words, suffering, and the cessaton of suffering - nirvana.

 

To make sure people do not misunderstand him, in another instance, he spoke against the Sankhya teaching of reifying the Unconditioned into a ground of being:

 

(by the way this scripture happens to be the FIRST of the hundreds of scriptures in the Majjhima Nikaya, called the Root Sequence)

 

See http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/two-sutras-teachings-of-buddha-on.html

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html

 

..."He directly knows water as water... the All as the All...

 

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you."

 

That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words.

 

 

 

Rob Burbea in Realizing the Nature of Mind:

 

One time the Buddha went to a group of monks and he basically told them not to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that’s actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very interesting sutta, because it’s one of the only suttas where at the end it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in his words.

 

This group of monks didn’t want to hear that. They were quite happy with that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not rejoice in the Buddha’s words. (laughter) And similarly, one runs into this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are unbudgeable there.

 

Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

 

The Buddha taught that clinging to views is one of the four forms of clinging that tie the mind to the processes of suffering. He thus recommended that his followers relinquish their clinging, not only to views in their full-blown form as specific positions, but also in their rudimentary form as the categories & relationships that the mind reads into experience. This is a point he makes in the following discourse, which is apparently his response to a particular school of Brahmanical thought that was developing in his time — the Samkhya, or classification school.

 

This school had its beginnings in the thought of Uddalaka, a ninth-century B.C. philosopher who posited a "root": an abstract principle out of which all things emanated and which was immanent in all things. Philosophers who carried on this line of thinking offered a variety of theories, based on logic and meditative experience, about the nature of the ultimate root and about the hierarchy of the emanation. Many of their theories were recorded in the Upanishads and eventually developed into the classical Samkhya system around the time of the Buddha.

 

Although the present discourse says nothing about the background of the monks listening to it, the Commentary states that before their ordination they were brahmans, and that even after their ordination they continued to interpret the Buddha's teachings in light of their previous training, which may well have been proto-Samkhya. If this is so, then the Buddha's opening lines — "I will teach you the sequence of the root of all phenomena" — would have them prepared to hear his contribution to their line of thinking. And, in fact, the list of topics he covers reads like a Buddhist Samkhya. Paralleling the classical Samkhya, it contains 24 items, begins with the physical world (here, the four physical properties), and leads back through ever more refined & inclusive levels of being & experience, culminating with the ultimate Buddhist concept: Unbinding (nibbana). In the pattern of Samkhya thought, Unbinding would thus be the ultimate "root" or ground of being immanent in all things and out of which they all emanate.

 

However, instead of following this pattern of thinking, the Buddha attacks it at its very root: the notion of a principle in the abstract, the "in" (immanence) & "out of" (emanation) superimposed on experience. Only an uninstructed, run of the mill person, he says, would read experience in this way. In contrast, a person in training should look for a different kind of "root" — the root of suffering experienced in the present — and find it in the act of delight. Developing dispassion for that delight, the trainee can then comprehend the process of coming-into-being for what it is, drop all participation in it, and thus achieve true Awakening.

 

If the listeners present at this discourse were indeed interested in fitting Buddhist teachings into a Samkhyan mold, then it's small wonder that they were displeased — one of the few places where we read of a negative reaction to the Buddha's words. They had hoped to hear his contribution to their project, but instead they hear their whole pattern of thinking & theorizing attacked as ignorant & ill-informed. The Commentary tells us, though, they were later able to overcome their displeasure and eventually attain Awakening on listening to the discourse reported in AN 3.123.

 

Although at present we rarely think in the same terms as the Samkhya philosophers, there has long been — and still is — a common tendency to create a "Buddhist" metaphysics in which the experience of emptiness, the Unconditioned, the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa, etc., is said to function as the ground of being from which the "All" — the entirety of our sensory & mental experience — is said to spring and to which we return when we meditate. Some people think that these theories are the inventions of scholars without any direct meditative experience, but actually they have most often originated among meditators, who label (or in the words of the discourse, "perceive") a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, identify with it in a subtle way (as when we are told that "we are the knowing"), and then view that level of experience as the ground of being out of which all other experience comes.

 

Any teaching that follows these lines would be subject to the same criticism that the Buddha directed against the monks who first heard this discourse.

 

 

 

p.s. With due respects to Thanissaro Bhikkhu who is a venerable from the Theravadin tradition of Buddhism, his comments on "the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa" is not in accord with what is taught in the Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhist traditions, since in these traditions the Dharmakaya (dharma body)/Buddha Nature/Rigpa is explained as empty as well. It is however a common misunderstanding even among Buddhists.

Edited December 26, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

By the way, Shurangama Sutra is not spoken by the historical Buddha since it is a much latter compilation - with regards to origins of Mahayana Sutras, can refer to http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/378306 and http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/434746

 

I'm a Mahayana-nist so I accept these sutras - as in revealed, late sutras. However not all sutras can be understood without context, for example another late sutra which was compiled by many authors - Mahaparinirvana Sutra, can easily be mistaken as eternalism.

 

So you must know that a lot of Mahayana Sutras speak in different styles from the historical Buddha.

 

The Pali Canon however contains the historical Buddha's spoken words.

Edited December 26, 2011 by xabir2005

[voidisyinyang]

[xabir2005]

Yeah empty:

 

 

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228392.700-light-pulled-out-of-empty-space.html

Not too sure what bearings all these findings have on our experience.

 

Scientists study the universe from a materialistic point of view... Spirituality studies the science of consciousness.

[Marblehead]

Greetings..

 

Non-duality is a term ...

 

Tao gave birth to One;

One gave birth to two.

 

End of non-duality. As soon as there were two we have duality.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Tao gave birth to One;

One gave birth to two.

 

End of non-duality. As soon as there were two we have duality.

Hi Marblehead: And even then, those with inclinations towards Buddhism will prattle on and on, disagreeing with those that are not so inclined, and even among themselves they will disagree with each other's beliefs.. what has become apparent is that they adore the sound of their own voices in discordance with everyone else, each supposing their own interpretation to be better than anyone else's.. and, they are prone to infect almost every discussion with their self-righteous prattle about some ancient Hindu rich kid who ran away from home because his parents lied to him, and he decided to end suffering by pretending it doesn't exist.. for people who drone on and on about non-duality they are ass deep is such rigid structure as to find it impossible to detach from it.. they are so bound to the illusion of Buddha's 'enlightenment' and subsequent well-marketed ravings, that any reference to non-duality is laughable.. the most appropriate understanding that non-dual believers need, is that "you can't get there from here".. understand that, and you will find contentment is what you 'are'.. but look at the pages of Buddhist wordplay trying to out-Buddha each other, and trying to convince others that that game is cool.. Secular Humanists are so much closer to understanding the 'isness' of existence than this redundant Buddhist yammering..

 

Be well..

[3bob]

You do not understand the context of what is said above. Buddha is talking about Final Cessation - the title of the scripture is called Final Cessation - Parinibbana. The analogy he gave is this: when the fire stops blowing due to lack of fire fuel, the fire cannot be said to go here, there, up, down, left, right, anywhere. It is just 'ceased'. The same applies to the final cessation.

 

Having ceased, it is not-born, not brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned. If cessation were not possible, there could not have been freedom from being reborn. Precisely because 'fire-stops-burning' is possible that there is freedom from fire so similarly, precisely because 'not-being-born, etc etc' is possible that there can be freedom from being born, etc.

 

This is not an unchanging metaphysical substance friend, it is talking about final cessation. That is ALL the Buddha is ever talking about in his pali scriptures... in his own words, suffering, and the cessaton of suffering - nirvana.

 

(long inserts here which can be seen previously)

 

The verse (and its context) does not mention or speak of an afterwards or a final this or that that happens because of or based on something else... the verse points to and I quote "there is monks (and or laypeople) a not born, etc.." this context speaks of not being affected, effected or changed by anything including a burning out of something else because of the stated meaning of, "there is...". You go to great lengths to suit the verse to something it does not say. Perhaps you should deconstruct and dismiss your own understanding?

 

p.s. then again keep your vehicle for as long as you want and may it serve you well.

Edited December 26, 2011 by 3bob

[xabir2005]

The verse (and its context) does not mention or speak of an afterwards or a final this or that that comes about because of something else... the verse points to and I quote "there is monks (and or laypeople) a not born, etc.." which is described as not affected or effected and which is not a burning out of this or that. You go to great lengths to suit the verse to something it does not say. Perhaps you should deconstruct and dismiss your own understanding?

All that he is saying is that there is a conventional truth called final cessation, that cessation is unconditioned, and so on. If there were no such thing as Nirvana (cessation), there can be no liberaton from samsara and rebirth. But precisely there is such a thing called Nirvana, which is unconditioned by afflictions, there is liberation from samsara. That which is spoken here is Nirvana - cessation. If there were not that dimension of Nirvana, sentient beings will be stuck in the rounds of rebirth again and again, but because there is such a thing as final cessation, there is possibility of liberation.

 

By the way, cessation does not happen 'out of this or that' but rather 'out of a LACK of this and that', this and that means our afflictions and ignorance... it is not conditioned, cessation is unconditioned - precisely of not being conditioned by conditions (without effluents), it is without birth.

 

Nirvana is thus not born, not conditioned, and so on.

 

As Buddha said,

 

There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support (mental object).[1] This, just this, is the end of stress.

 

- no more rebirth, no more births, neither this world nor the NEXT world... not even the highest formless heavens... ended is all suffering

 

I have already showed you in my previous post how Buddha rejected any notion of a ground of being, so you should be the one dismissing your wrong understanding of Buddhist teachings which contradicts all the suttas - whereas with right understanding, you can understand not just one sutta (wrongly - with eternalistic view) but the entire of the canon seamlessly without contradiction.

 

Another term for Nirvana is Unbinding.

 

For the supported there is instability, for the unsupported there is no instability; when there is no instability there is serenity; when there is serenity there is no inclination: when there is no inclination there is no coming-and-going; when there is no coming-and-going there is no decease-and-uprising; when there is no decease-and-uprising there is neither "here" nor "beyond" nor "in between the two." Just this is the end of suffering.

 

....

 

"This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana."

 

— AN 3.32

 

....

 

There's no fire like passion, no loss like anger, no pain like the aggregates, no ease other than peace. Hunger: the foremost illness. Fabrications: the foremost pain. For one knowing this truth as it actually is, Unbinding is the foremost ease. Freedom from illness: the foremost good fortune. Contentment: the foremost wealth. Trust: the foremost kinship. Unbinding: the foremost ease.

 

— Dhp 202-205

 

.....

 

Some are born in the human womb, evildoers in hell, those on the good course go to heaven, while those without effluent: totally unbound.

 

— Dhp 126

Edited December 26, 2011 by xabir2005

[3bob]

Tao gave birth to One;

One gave birth to two.

 

End of non-duality. As soon as there were two we have duality.

 

Yet the One still contains the Two, and that can be extrapolated to the Tao containing the One, although the mind can't really get a handle on that idea. (and that is well)

Edited December 26, 2011 by 3bob

[3bob]

All that he is saying is that there is a conventional truth called final cessation, that cessation is unconditioned, and so on. If there were no such thing as Nirvana (cessation), there can be no liberaton from samsara and rebirth. But precisely there is such a thing called Nirvana, which is unconditioned by afflictions, there is liberation from samsara. That which is spoken here is Nirvana - cessation. If there were not that dimension of Nirvana, sentient beings will be stuck in the rounds of rebirth again and again, but because there is such a thing as final cessation, there is possibility of liberation.

 

By the way, cessation does not happen 'out of this or that' but rather 'out of a LACK of this and that', this and that means our afflictions and ignorance... it is not conditioned, cessation is unconditioned - precisely of not being conditioned by conditions (without effluents), it is without birth.

 

Nirvana is thus not born, not conditioned, and so on.

Dhp 126[/i]

 

(list of inserts here, can be seen previously)

 

 

That was a quick comeback which gives a variation that still has similar problems, although instead of a not 'out of this or that' it is because of a 'lack of this or that'; which btw I hear such an interpretation being refuted by the "four fold negation".

Edited December 26, 2011 by 3bob

[3bob]

Well he keeps commenting so obviously all is not lost. haha....

 

 

suggest you delete this post

[xabir2005]

That was a quick comeback which gives a variation that still has similar problems, although instead of a not 'out of this or that' it is because of a 'lack of this or that'; which btw I hear such an interpretation being refuted by the "four fold negation".

The Buddha applied fourfold negation to the view of existent self.

 

The principle of dependent origination has it that manifestation arises due to supporting condition, ceases due to the cessation of supporting conditions. But it is precisely because of dependent arising that everything is empty of an inherent/independent essence, and thus there is no true arising and cessation. (because to speak of a real existence, a real arising and ceasing, requires the view of an 'entity', a 'self', an 'existent')

 

When what is dependently arisen, has no substance and true arising, its cessation also have no absolute reality. What is dependently arisen is empty, and being empty and non-arising, cannot be said to have a real cessation, cessation being spoken merely conventionally.

 

That is why I said Nirvana is spoken conventionally, it is not an ultimate reality. The truth of emptiness is linked with dependent origination - it is due to dependent origination that things are said to be empty.

 

The Buddha is also known to have said:

 

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

Edited December 26, 2011 by xabir2005

[3bob]

The Buddha applied fourfold negation to the view of existent self.

 

The principle of dependent origination has it that manifestation arises due to supporting condition, ceases due to the cessation of supporting conditions. But it is precisely because of dependent arising that everything is empty of an inherent/independent essence, and thus there is no true arising and cessation.

 

When what is dependently arisen, has no substance and true arising, its cessation also have no absolute reality. What is dependently arisen is empty, and being empty and non-arising, cannot be said to have a real cessation, cessation being spoken merely conventionally.

 

That is why I said Nirvana is conventional, not an ultimate reality. The truth of emptiness is linked with dependent origination - it is due to dependent origination that things are said to be empty.

 

The Buddha is also known to have said:

 

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

 

The Buddha could not limit the four fold negation in only that way, for there is no such limit bound to the use or meaning of that tool(s). Besides he was also talking of Buddha nature and not just material form.

[xabir2005]

The Buddha could not limit the four fold negation in only that way, for there is no such limit bound to the use or meaning of that tool(s). Besides he was also talking of Buddha nature and not just material form.

The view of an existent self can apply to 1) the subjective self 2) the self of dharmas/phenomena so basically everything is covered therein.

 

The Buddha did not speak about Buddha-nature at all in the Pali Suttas - Tathagatagarbha is a late teaching maybe 1000 years after Buddha's passing. Anyway, all the Buddhist traditions except some late Chinese works and the Tibetan Shentong/Jonang school (once banned by a previous Dalai Lama) whose views become similar to Advaita, actually hold that Buddha-Nature is empty - in other words the four fold negation applies to 'Buddha-nature' as well.

 

In particular, the Vajrayana tradition and the teachings of Dzogchen and Mahamudra holds that Buddha-nature to be simply the union of luminosity and emptiness, in other words Buddha-Nature is also utterly empty and unestablished, without any unchanging self or identity. It is not the case that Pali suttas did not talk about luminosity, however it was not singled out and being given a name, but the Buddha did talk about the mind being luminous even in the pali suttas.

Edited December 26, 2011 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

Greetings..

 

Hi Marblehead: And even then, ...

 

You did take that a little further than I did, didn't you? Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

Yet the One still contains the Two, and that can be extrapolated to the Tao containing the One, although the mind can't really get a handle on that idea. (and that is well)

 

Yeah, but I live amongst the ten thousand things so that is where I must apply most of my efforts during my time in this manifest form.

 

Sure, I have said before, and likely will again, "All is One" but when I say that I am referring to the thought that we are all of the same source.

 

And indeed, I think it would be impossible to differentiate between One and Tao.

[3bob]

Yeah, but I live amongst the ten thousand things so that is where I must apply most of my efforts during my time in this manifest form.

 

Sure, I have said before, and likely will again, "All is One" but when I say that I am referring to the thought that we are all of the same source.

 

And indeed, I think it would be impossible to differentiate between One and Tao.

 

Mh, Is such not possible for the Tao (TTC 43, 3rd line ?) and it's not exactly a differentiation/separation since there is an unbreakable connection/transformation.

 

Om

Edited December 28, 2011 by 3bob

[3bob]

The view of an existent self can apply to 1) the subjective self 2) the self of dharmas/phenomena so basically everything is covered therein.

 

The Buddha did not speak about Buddha-nature at all in the Pali Suttas - Tathagatagarbha is a late teaching maybe 1000 years after Buddha's passing. Anyway, all the Buddhist traditions except some late Chinese works and the Tibetan Shentong/Jonang school (once banned by a previous Dalai Lama) whose views become similar to Advaita, actually hold that Buddha-Nature is empty - in other words the four fold negation applies to 'Buddha-nature' as well.

 

In particular, the Vajrayana tradition and the teachings of Dzogchen and Mahamudra holds that Buddha-nature to be simply the union of luminosity and emptiness, in other words Buddha-Nature is also utterly empty and unestablished, without any unchanging self or identity. It is not the case that Pali suttas did not talk about luminosity, however it was not singled out and being given a name, but the Buddha did talk about the mind being luminous even in the pali suttas.

 

Mahaparinibbana Sutta "63. Then the Blessed One said to the bhikkhus: "So, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness. The time of the Tathagata's (insert: If one does not really know the meaning of the Tathagata then adding a few more letters to this word as in 'garbha' really makes no difference in knowledge or meaning as I see it) Parinibbana is near. Three months hence the Tathagata will utterly pass away."

Edited December 28, 2011 by 3bob

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Hi 3bob: TTC 43, line 3.. "That which has no form can enter where there is no space" (literally, 'not have enter not space')..

 

TTC is arranged in Chapters to communicate messages.. surely, we could take anything out of context and speculate as to its meaning.. how would you interpret Chapter 43 in its entirety?

 

Yet the One still contains the Two, and that can be extrapolated to the Tao containing the One, although the mind can't really get a handle on that idea. (and that is well)

Would you consider replacing "contains/containing" with 'is'? It seem to make more sense, to me..

 

Be well..

[Vmarco]

Greetings..

 

Non-duality is a term that allows people to talk about it and sound as if they were mystics or sages, or as if the they were on some path to enlightenment.. the result of claiming the term's validity is to create conflict (see this thread).

 

Non-duality is only meaningful to creatures that have the intellect to contrive such a concept, and.. ironically, it is the condition of separation or, of independently functioning versions of Wholeness, that is necessary for the concept of non-duality to be compared with for its apparent meaning.. if there were no 'duality', the term 'non-duality' wouldn't make sense, and.. since duality is an existent condition, the fundamental condition for existence, the term 'non-duality' is negated, except for parlor tricks with wordplay..

 

For many, such as yourself, non-duality doesn't make sense without duality,...it is as you say, just a term or concept or parlor trick for those like TzuJanLi to play mystic or sage. However, from Non-duality's point of view (although it doesn't use words), it does not need the illusion of maya to exist. Granted that a Center needs a boundary, a Here needs a There, One needs a Many,...but Non-duality is beyond the sum of those opposites. Like absolute love, Non-duality doesn't have an opposite.

 

There is no relationship between "is-ness" and "not-ness". There is no relationship or dependant origination of that which is beyond Duality. For Buddhist who disagree, it is suggested they read the Mountain Doctrine.

Non-Duality is neither with-in nor with-out Duality,...the perceived separation that manifests Form and Empty, Yang and Yin, positive electricity and negative electricity, a particle and wave, or sphere and torus, never existed within Non-duality,...within Undivided Light.

 

No aspect of Duality is existent,...such a belief is the barrier built by ego (which itself does not exist) to obscure the reality of Non-duality. Duality is a synonym for dream.

 

V